Get transcript

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable context: no-auth, no-quota operation, default prose vs timestamped output, and a clear failure case ('Videos with captions disabled have no transcript and nothing can recover one'). This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a concrete model of behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is four short sentences, each earning its place. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the auth-free context, then the output options, then the limitation. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description provides all essential context: what it does, when to use it, what to expect as output (prose or timestamped lines), and the failure condition. No output schema exists, but the description partially covers return format. There are no missing critical details for an agent to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning to any parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., timestamps format, language defaults). It mentions prose vs timestamps but that is already captured in the schema description. No extra value is added, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description begins with 'Read the transcript of ANY public YouTube video', a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from account-specific tools by adding 'not just your own', and clarifies the output modes (prose vs timestamped lines). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_my_videos or search_transcript.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states when to use: for any public video without needing an account or API key, which differentiates it from tools that require authentication. It also notes the captions-disabled limitation, implying when not to use. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_transcript or get_transcripts, so alternatives are implied rather than called out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.